Is this the same Alpha that Lord British played?

It looks like a very different game...



Are we testing the same alpha/pre-alpha. I mean everything seems to be different in this 'thing' that we are allowed to log in to. Graphics different, character movement different... so odd.

Also is SOTA being developed on DX9 engine if so, why? Isn't this supposed to be a game with modern graphics? I mean its barely 4 months in development, shouldn't they've picked a bit more graphically advanced graphics engine? Just a concern.

 

One is a polished demo, the other an ALPHA
So, at least you know how the game will look later

 

Hello,
This section of the forum is for reporting only bugs. I am moving this thread to the General Discussion section where you can continue your discussion.

Thank you for helping test SotA R1!

 

Graphics quality is something that is low on my list of priorities when it comes to the games I enjoy. Heck I still play some 20+ year old SNES games from time to time. Perhaps I am much more forgiving because I grew up in the 70's and 80's and the video games I grew up enjoying could never compare to todays games graphically. If graphics make a game then no one would have enjoyed them back then.

I understand that for some graphics holds a much more important role for them. Perhaps they are of a younger generation who never fully learned to appreciate a game for game play and content because that was all that their was or perhaps visual appearances are just their thing? I dont know..

SotA's graphics are perfectly fine to me. Sure having a graphically pleasing game is a bonus but I personally would rather see them spend their time and budget on content.

To each their own I suppose.

 

On the login screen, there is an announcement that the game is only partially optimized, probably so it will run on the widest number of system configurations, so it probably isn't the same version we have seen on previous demos where the exact video configuration was known in advance.

 

Well LB could chop trees & swing a sword so his version is definitely more advanced then this 'THING' we are logging into. LBs version seemed fun, the conversation system seemed interesting. Our version, not so much :/

But like CRACHAZZ said at least we have something to look forward to

 

The build we have is limited to the items the developers wants to test. The Alpha test is for the benefit of the developers, not for the benefit of the testers.

 

Step by step testing by the crowd is a very good way to get all bugs/errors reported for each step of the building PRE-ALPHA process! Yay, for letting we who are the crowd/fans/supporters in on helping the bugs/tests be found during the building process. Focus on your volunteer 'job', crowd. That's to find the bugs and report them. That helps us all to have a great adventure later -- bug free. "There is no game" is a KNOWN ISSUE.

 

If you read the R1 instructions they explain what is functional and what is not. So obviously, no its not the same thing. Crafting, combat, etc. are all turned off for the R1 testing.

 

That is a very important point which is often missed by most. Not that it isn't fun to get to see early phases of development.

 

I assume the capability for us to chop trees and such may have been there. But that is not what they were focused on so it was turned off or we weren't in a place where it could be used.

 

I cannot wait for us to be able to do more things like that. but right now deco'ing my crib is fun. I even found a few fulll sets of armor and my Avi is looking kinda dapper

 

Graphics? Pffft. When UO tried to make their new graphics, it never took off. I still play UO and to this day I use the 1997 client. Why? Because a sandbox is not about "OMG it's purty!". It's about function.

Every big MMO that comes out there is always a discussion. Do you want better graphics? Or better gameplay? I'm afraid to tell you, those two are on a sliding bar. To improve one, you have to limit the other.

P.S. I'm already blown away at how well this game looks in pre-alpha. Even with the textures I came across that were not polished. Maybe it's because I thought "Man, what if UO looked like this". But hey, I was already immersed with pre-alpha even with the lack of polish and plethora of bugs.

 

No you don't... the two are IN NO WAY mutually exclusive. The problem has been lately that the gameplay portion of development has been short-cutted by just about everyone, especially in the Corporate world. That's why Indie games are becoming more and more important. The scales are tipping back to the independent developer, the way it used to be. The same thing happened in the music industry. First people made music on their own. Then you needed the Music Labels to get your work out into the public, now with the internet, independent artists can again make their work known.

There's ABSOLUTELY no reason SotA can't have both state of the art mind-blowing graphics and effects (other than budget of course, but even then what we have so far bodes VERY WELL) and the innovative gameplay the Ultima series pioneered.

 

$3,000,000 is the reason this game can't be AAA on all aspects. When a company is given near unlimited funds to build a game, their team also has insane deadlines to keep. They can not spend too much time on a single thing, hence the slidescale. If it's an indy company, then no deadlines, BUT, no money.

They fact they produced what they have already with only 1% of what a AAA game would have to spend, is mindblowing. They already covered why they went with the engine that they did, and they even stated it brings us graphics that should be outside of their reach with such a tiny budget.

If you want an indy company to be able to put that much effort into graphics and also gameplay, then we need to raise these guys another $297,000,000 then ask that of them.

 

Now this is part of a 5 game series...who is to say each expansion doesn't bring something new to the table. I remember DAOC had an expansion that was a huge improvement to the way the game looked and played (well I liked it).

As the success of each expansion brings more money for them to make improvements....like swimming for example, or the looks of the character model improves incredibly... Just watching this video and another one at just the 6 month mark I'm amazed...especially after getting to play this weekend. They are testing systems and preparing... I can't wait till the 4th stress test (combat!)

 

I like how you guys are all defending the graphics and saying it’s not important. Well, I’m sorry, but they are important. And basing your comments about past games and still playing those games and not caring if they look dated cannot be compared to today’s standards. This is a game in that demo video that showed off much better graphics. I’m thinking back to when the Demo of Colonial Marines was shown and when the games final l version came out and all the whining that went on about that.

So, how is this any different from a demo they showed off at E3? Compared to a Demo RG showed off trying to sell the game? Especially since these graphics currently are nowhere near that quality. And sayings are Pre Alpha only gets them a little slack. I’m still trying to find a write up by the Devs stating the current graphics are place holders.

Please prove me wrong, I want to be wrong. Because I really want to see better from the game.

 

I found nothing wrong with the graphics and it looked the same as the video but regardless the game isn't optimised for every type of hardware. Also make sure you have the latest drivers for your video card. But really the game is 9 months into development and still has almost another year to go surely they'll have improved the graphical quality and optimization by that time. Right now graphics aren't priority why? Because graphics can be done last minute effectively the programming is a lot harder than the graphics. They are a small team and they are doing the best they can shoo have patients.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

I've seen all the videos and the video of the OP, of course, but I really can't see the big differences to the R1 Pre-Alpha, we got. Where are those? In that outdoor forest map? Sorry, but I can't see why the SotA shouldn't be able to produce these images.

The PRE-ALPHA Release 1 had some really nice light and shadow effects. I liked the birds and the little details like the fireflies, etc. And for me the graphics are more than sufficient for an Online RPG with an indie budget.

There can be no question, that Lord British is playing another version as we do, since the only purpose of R1 is to test specific elements of the game (login process, conversations, housing, claims, etc.). So a lot stuff was cut out of this release, like Lum and other developers said many many times.

And to compare it to the deception of the Aliens E3 Video is just wrong, since in that video, not only the graphics were vastly different, but also the gameplay (they showed of an A.I. and enemy behavior, that the released game never had; similar to the videos of Rome Total War 2).

But the most important thing for me is: As long as the 3Mio SotA-Engine allows me the freedom to enter houses in this game without loading times and decorate my house with this amount of possibilities (like putting stuff in shelves, etc.), I prefer it to the 100Mio graphics of a game like Skyrim all the time!

Cheers,
Andreas

 

Engines can age very well.

Take ARMA and EVE Online for great examples. ARMA's engine first debuted in 2001 with Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crises (now known as ARMA: Cold War Assault). It's most recent game; ARMA 3, looks absolutely stunning! It's still the same engine.